CBCA 3815-C(1512)-R

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: May 21, 2015 CBCA 3815-C(1512)-R, 3816-C(1537)-R SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT, INC., Applicant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Robert C. MacKichan, Jr., and Marques O. Peterson of Vedder Price, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Nathan C. Guerrero, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges SOMERS, STERN and GOODMAN. SOMERS, Board Judge. In Systems Integration & Management, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 3815-C(1512), 3816-C(1537), 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,886, we granted in part and denied in part an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) application. We found Systems Integration & Management, Inc. (SIM) eligible to recover attorneys’ fees. However, we limited SIM’s recovery to $32,150. This amount reflected 257.2 hours worked by one of SIM’s attorneys, Mr. P. H. Harrington, on SIM’s claim from December 18, 2008, the date of the General Services Administration (GSA) contracting officer’s final decision, to April 9, 2010. Based upon our review of all of the evidence presented, we held that on that date, GSA’s position in the litigation became substantially justified, when SIM rejected nearly identical terms of a settlement that both parties had agreed upon weeks earlier. As a result, we denied attorney fees and costs sought from April 9, 2010, onward. CBCA 3815-C(1512)-R, 3816-C(1537)-R 2 SIM now seeks reconsideration of the Board’s decision. “Motions for reconsideration are committed to the considerable discretion of the Board.” URS Energy & Construction, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 2260-R, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,147, at 172,522 (citing Beyley Construction Group Corp. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5-R, et al., 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,784, at 167,203). The Board reconsiders decisions under limited circumstances set out in Board Rule 26 (48 CFR 6101.26 (2014)). As the Board has stated, [R]econsideration may be granted for any of the following reasons set out in Rule 27(a): newly discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence; justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; the decision has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior decision upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, and it is no longer equitable that the decision should have prospective application; the decision is void, whether for lack of jurisdiction or otherwise; or any other ground justifying reconsideration, including a reason established by the rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties in the courts of the United States. Ryll International, LLC v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 1143-R, 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,029, at 172,144 (citing Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 1072-R, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,063, at 168,431-32, aff’d sub nom. Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Salazar, 355 F. App’x 403 (Fed. Cir. 2009); W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1495-R, 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,038, at 172,154 (2011); Springcar Co. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1310-R, et al., 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,534, at 170,332). “Reconsideration is not a vehicle for retrying a case or introducing arguments that have been made previously.” Ryll International, 12-1 BCA at 172,144 (citing Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, & Siuslaw Indians v. Department of Health and Human Services, CBCA 237-ISDA-R, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,476 at 170,043). Significantly, Rule 26(a) also cautions that “[a]rguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration, for altering or amending a decision, or for granting a new hearing.” Id. (citing Beyley Construction Group Corp. 08-1 BCA at 167,203). In its motion for reconsideration, SIM asserts that the Board’s decision contains a factual error, and that GSA, rather than SIM, walked away from the settlement in April 2010. More specifically, SIM says that GSA presented a draft settlement on April 1, 2010, CBCA 3815-C(1512)-R, 3816-C(1537)-R 3 which included changes that did not comport with the settlement that the parties had reached in principle on March 23, 2010.